The American Humane Association’s (AHA) farm animal welfare certification program – American Humane Certified – announced in June that it will permit the use of so-called enriched battery cages for laying hens as an option for humane housing. Humane? My first reaction on hearing this was, “Hey guys, you do realize this is still a cage, don’t you?” But let’s be evenhanded about this and look at the reasoning put forward by the American Humane Association. The American Humane Association’s rationale for this decision is that these cages are “enriched” to allow hens to exhibit natural behaviors. In making this decision AHA states that it has carried out an extensive scientific review of the behavior and welfare of laying hens housed in such systems – mainly looking at research from Europe where conventional cages are soon to be totally banned. Okay, so I might consider accepting that an “enriched” battery cage possibly offers better welfare opportunities than a standard battery cage. But AHA fails to recognize some key behavioral needs that hens are driven to perform. I am talking about providing the birds with space to run, stretch, flap their wings, and fly; litter and somewhere to dust bathe; and vegetated areas to peck at and forage in. AHA also significantly underestimates the ability of enriched cages to provide adequate nesting and perching. So what does the research really tell us about “enriched” battery cages? And are they really a humane option? I was pretty confident that a lot of research existed to say some of these behaviors are not wants but programmed driven behavioral needs.
AP’s Erica Werner covers a report released Wednesday by the GAO to a House committee hearing that will examine federal oversight on factory farms.
According to the GAO report, EPA does not currently have the information it needs to effectively regulate CAFOs, which have increased in number by 230 percent in the past 20 years.
The report reveals that “some large farms that raise animals can generate more raw waste than populations of some U.S. cities produce annually,” but the EPA reports that “requirement created an unnecessary burden for farms and that the emission release reports usually weren’t needed or acted upon,” according to the AP story.
By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer
September 24, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Some huge livestock farms produce more raw waste than cities as large as Philadelphia or Houston. But federal regulators are failing to control pollution from the gigantic operations or assess health risks from the enormous quantities of manure they produce, according to congressional investigators.
The conclusions fueled concerns about a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule change that would eliminate one of the few federal oversight mechanisms over air and water pollution from big farms.
The rule would eliminate a requirement that farms report to federal, state and local officials when air emissions of hazardous substances like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide exceed certain levels.
EPA proposed the rule change in December, contending the requirement created an unnecessary burden for farms and that the emission release reports usually weren’t needed or acted upon.
“It is unclear to us” how EPA reached that determination, GAO said, noting that a national association representing emergency responders has said in comments to EPA that the reports are needed.
“This GAO study confirms that the Bush administration’s plan to exempt industrial-sized animal feeding operations from emissions reporting requirements is nothing more than a favor to big agribusiness,” said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
An EPA spokesman noted Tuesday that the proposed exemption was limited, as it would apply only to emissions from animal waste.
“How soon Congress forgets that it directed EPA to expeditiously resolve confusion over animal waste emissions reporting requirements” under federal law, said EPA spokesman Tim Lyons. “EPA moved forward responsibly and proposed a rule that achieved the goal of reducing the reporting burden and protected public health and the environment.”
The GAO report said that no federal agency collects data on the number, size and location of “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,” as the big farms are known. Using more general Agriculture Department data for large farms as a proxy, GAO said the number of large farms that raise animals increased 234 percent from about 3,600 in 1982 to about 12,000 in 2002.
The number of animals on the farms also increased, and with them the amount of animal waste, which can be prodigious. The report said a large farm with 800,000 hogs or a beef cattle farm with 140,000 head of cattle could each produce more than 1.6 million tons of manure per year – 1½ times more than the annual sanitary waste produced by the city of Philadelphia, and slightly more than the 1.4 million tons produced by the city of Houston every year.
In one example, GAO said that five contiguous North Carolina counties in 2002 had an estimated 7.5 million hogs that could have produced as much as 15.5
million tons of manure. Agriculture experts and government officials told investigators that raised concerns about overapplication of manure to cropland in those areas and the release of excessive levels of pollutants.
EPA doesn’t limit the amount of air pollution this waste can emit, and a 2003 rule to require permits for waste discharges into water was partly overturned in court. EPA has been reworking the water discharge rule for several years but has not yet finalized it.
Without federal guidelines, states have been moving on their own, the GAO found. Officials in California, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and North Dakota reported developing state air regulations for certain pollutants emitted by factory farms.[Emphasis provided.]’, ‘Report: Regulators fail to control pollution from giant livestock farms